Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-01134

#1

Feb 23, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ATXWDC-21441765), filed by Juan Antonio Garcia Munoz. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Memo in Support, # 3 Proposed Order)(Castillo, Rodolfo) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

Feb 23, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Feb 23, 2026

If ordered by the court, all referrals will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Farrer (rqr)

Feb 23, 2026

Case assigned to Judge Jason K. Pulliam. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (rqr)

Feb 23, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#2

Feb 24, 2026

STANDING ORDER for procedure in cases before Judge Pulliam. All parties and counsel are directed to review Judge Pulliam's Standing Order containing rules of practice, particularly the requirement of conference before filing a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) and demonstration of complete diversity. Failure to follow these rules of practice could result in the Court striking the Motion to Dismiss on its own initiative without further notice. Signed by Judge Jason Pulliam. (r013) (Entered: 02/24/2026)

#3

Feb 27, 2026

ORDER FOR SERVICE. The Court hereby DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to furnish a copy of the Petition and this Order to the Office of the United States Attorney in San Antonio, Texas. Delivery of those same documents by certified mail, return receipt requested. Federal Respondents are ORDERED to file a response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus no later than March 6, 2026. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any possible or anticipated removal or transfer is IM-MEDIATELY STAYED until further order from this Court.. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (rqr) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

#4

Feb 27, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt of 3 Order, along with 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (rqr) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

#5

Mar 06, 2026

RESPONSE RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CONSIDERING RECENT FIFTH CIRCUIT PRECEDENT by Miguel Vergara. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Playton, Christina) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

#6

Mar 11, 2026

Certified Mail Receipt delivered Stephanie Rico of 4 Certified Mail Receipt (vl) (Entered: 03/19/2026)

#7

May 08, 2026

Opposed MOTION to Lift Stay on Transfer or Removal by Miguel Vergara. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1)(Wade, Landon) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

#8

May 11, 2026

AMENDED COMPLAINT EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241, EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY OF REMOVAL, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE against Bobby Thompson, Miguel Vergara amending 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus., filed by Juan Antonio Garcia Munoz.(Castillo, Rodolfo) (Entered: 05/11/2026)

#9

Jun 23, 2026

AMENDED COMPLAINT NOTICE OF IMMINENT PREJUDICE AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF PENDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS against Miguel Vergara amending 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus., filed by Juan Antonio Garcia Munoz.(Castillo, Rodolfo) (Entered: 06/23/2026)

#10

Jul 09, 2026

ORDER FOR OMNIBUS ADVISORY. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (r013) (Entered: 07/09/2026)

#11

Jul 13, 2026

ORDER VACATING re 10 Order for Omnibus Advisory. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (r013) (Entered: 07/13/2026)

#12

Jul 29, 2026

ADVISORY TO THE COURT by Miguel Vergara . (Anderson, Edmond) (Entered: 07/29/2026)

#13

Aug 28, 2026

Emergency MOTION to Expedite Consideration in Support of 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Juan Antonio Garcia Munoz. (rqr) (Entered: 08/31/2026)

#14

Sep 16, 2026

TEXT ORDER GRANTING 8 AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; MOOTING 7 Presumed Opposed Motion to Lift Stay of Removal; DENYING 9 Request for Expedited Consideration (erroneously docketed by counsel as an Amended Petition); and DENYING 13 Motion to Expedite. The Court denies the latter motion because it does not permit hybrid representation, and Petitioner filed the motion without the assistance of his attorney of record. The Court denies the attorney-filed request for expedited consideration, as well as the pro se motion, because they provide no basis to expedite this habeas action any more than the Court has already done through its normal procedures. The facts of this case are not in dispute. And, while still not as clear as it could be, the Court interprets the Amended Petition, in conjunction with the original supporting memorandum of law, as claiming that Respondents have violated procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by detaining Petitioner without any meaningful individualized review even though he has established a significant presence in the United States. The asserted constitutional claim is broad enough to assert a pre-detention procedural due process claim based on that significant presence.After reviewing the briefing, provided evidence, and applicable law, the Court grants the petition based on the law as set out and analyzed in Longoria Mendoza v. Noem, 823 F. Supp. 3d 636 (W.D. Tex. 2026) and numerous other cases decided by the undersigned. While there are differences between this case and Longoria Mendoza, none warrant a different result. For reasons previously stated in Longoria Mendoza, the Court finds that (1) it has jurisdiction to consider the arguments presented in the instant habeas petition; (2) any asserted failure to exhaust administrative remedies is excused; (3) Respondents have violated Petitioner's procedural due process rights; and (4) fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 are not available in habeas corpus proceedings like this one. The Court treats the instant action solely as a habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and declines to consider any claim other than the alleged violation of procedural due process. The Court has considered the arguments Respondents made in response to the original petition and rejects them for reasons stated in prior cases. Respondents have filed no response to the amended petition.Under the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court concludes Petitioner's detention is unlawful, and habeas relief is proper. Because Petitioner has no known criminal history, has established a significant presence in the United States that requires due process protection, and there is no indication of flight risk or danger to the community, it is ORDERED that on or before September 18, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Juan Antonio Garcia Munoz from custody to a public location, under appropriate conditions of release. This release terminates the stay entered in this case and thus moots the motion to lift stay. Respondents must NOTIFY Petitioner's counsel of the exact location and exact time of release as soon as practicable and no less than two hours before release. Any possible or anticipated removal or transfer of Petitioner under this present detention is PROHIBITED. No later than the next business day after the ordered release date, Respondents shall FILE a status report to confirm whether Petitioner has been released. If counsel for Petitioner disagrees with any aspect of the filed Status Report, counsel may file a separate Status Report. A written final judgment will be issued separately to summarize the orders of the Court and to close this habeas case. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (rw) (Entered: 09/16/2026)

#15

Sep 16, 2026

FINAL JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (rqr) (Entered: 09/17/2026)

Sep 16, 2026

Order on Motion to Expedite

#16

Sep 21, 2026

Status Report